Waterfront Regeneration and City Ports

This think-piece draws on ideas about waterfront regeneration in a globalised world, and focuses on what is happening in Auckland – especially around the future of the Ports of Auckland.

Few weeks ago I returned from visiting regenerating waterfronts in Dublin, Newscastle/Gateshead, and Greenwich London. A few years ago I checked out other waterfront projects at Malmo and Roskilde, Copenhagen, Canary Wharf and Hamburg. My plan was to learn from them. Originally my objective was to be able to engage on an informed basis with Auckland’s waterfront as a Councillor, though now my work is as a planning adviser with a continuing waterfront planning research focus at University of Auckland.

Yesterday’s debate at Auckland Council over POAL’s latest set of expansion plans ranged between two very different points of view. One was espoused by Michael Barnett, CEO of Auckland Chamber of Commerce, and the other by Chris Darby who Chairs the Takapuna-Devonport Local Board.

Barnett berated the Heart of the City organization which has advocated against ports expansion plans and for more work to be done on relocation. Barnett said, “the Port is the heart of Auckland”. Darby argued that Auckland was changing, that it was becoming more of a “Harbour Edge City” than one with sprawling reclamations into its harbour. In my opinion, both statements have elements of truth in them.

The problem with Barnett’s statement, and point of view however, is that it harks back to a time of steam engines, coal fired train networks, railway sidings, steam ships, coal reserves, and waterside gasworks. The essence of the industrial revolution on the waterfront – where shipping routes met railways met factories and delivered the coal to power all of them, and to make the gas that warmed the homes and cooked the food of the employees who found work there.

The world has moved on since then, and cities all round the world from Baltimore to Singapore, from Hamburg to Sydney have all engaged in massive waterfront regeneration shaped and defined by two major forces.

The first of these is that cities are no longer places for industrial production. Instead they are places of consumption and places for play and there is a global competition to be high on the list of the best by being unique and creating great places to be.

The second of these is that the smoke-stack vision of the city port is obsolete. As is its presence in the modern city landscape which today is more defined by buildings, infrastructure and services driven by the new information and communication technologies. Containerisation has also radically transformed ports from concentrations of finger wharves and truck movements and railway sidings, to large areas of land generally far removed from the heart of the city, and reliant on good warehousing and fast rapid rail for delivery and dispatch.

If we are to consider the market – even the global market - and what it needs, the first of these is good connectivity. But that does not require physical proximity. It does require good accessibility. That’s what inland ports are about. It’s also why Marsden and Ports of Tauranga and even Wellington work well – alongside their respective cities – but not ruining their hearts.

We can learn from them, and also integrate better with them, so that heavy freight goes through those ports, rather than through Auckland’s heart.

In New Zealand the lions share of export tonnage is primary produce and derivatives which are not grown in Auckland. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to appreciate that a growing port in Auckland, will require a growing number of truck and trailer and train movements across Auckland, right through its very heart, to get this heavy freight between ship and land destination or origin.

Equally, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that reclaiming more of Waitemata Harbour to create more space to store and unload containers and other freight, will inevitably reduce the amount of recreational and scenic waterspace within Waitemata Harbour. Yet nowhere do I see the “highest and best use” economic benefit-cost calculation applied to that loss of waterspace. If we look at almost any other city of dreams around the world, one that is regenerating its waterfront, we will see that the jewel that is most precious is its waterspace, and access to, recreation on, and views of that waterspace.

I accept there is a nostalgic appeal with a working port. It adds to the character of a waterfront. The marinecraft industry at Wynyard Quarter will be an asset in the future as an attraction. But it’s not a cuckoo that is threatening to get bigger than its nest.

Right now, the Port of Auckland, backed by its smoke-stack champions, are on a path, unless the community disagrees, that will break the hearts of Aucklanders when the full reality is unleashed, and when permitted and planned reclamations go ahead.

There is scope for restructuring of existing port and marine industrial uses, and packaging them, and representing them to fit better with the overall objective of building a better city, and one that fits the city of sails vision. And I’m afraid I don’t hold out much hope of that sort of thinking if the consultation over the options for the future of the port is left to the Ports of Auckland.

Auckland might like to remain a little backwater fondly regurgitating its coal-fired waterfront history, and repeating it, but the rest of the world is changing and new technologies are changing the way cities work and what makes them successful. The questions that I would like to see debated by Auckland Council include: who manages Auckland’s waterfront spaces and places? Who will balance the cultural, social and economic functions of those waterfront spaces and places understanding the opportunities that are here? And what will make Auckland’s waterfront more culturally and socially attractive for us all?

Thinking about those questions is needed in Auckland now.

Great Port Debate Continues

On Monday 16^th April, the Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan Committee met to consider the Port of Auckland’s latest two options for the Port’s expanded future.

This blog posting reports the blow by blow debate in the Council Chamber, and gives a score card assessment of individual performance ( I was going to do this - but instead I wrote the thinkpiece that I posted just after this one....).

The public discussion so far has been reasonably well captured in NZ Herald.

In essence – though it is very hard to actually lay your hands on these plans – the two Port expansion options can be summarized:

Option 1:  Reclaim Bledisloe out about 180 metres, and give back to the public Marsden Wharf

Option 2:  Reclaim Bledisloe out about 135 metres and keep Marsden Wharf.

From what I can glean talking about it, the issue for the Port Company is how to deal with anticipated cargo expansion not containers (this includes car imports and such like), and they base their plans on a year by year increase in freight of 4%. That seems to be the heart of the increase in trade demand that POAL aims to meet – over the next 30 years – through these expansion plans. Which are a lot less than Council was looking at this time last year.

So. Back to yesterday’s debate about the Port (there were other items relating to the Unitary Plan, as you might expect, but I’m not dealing with them here):

Apologies: Councillors Lee and Coney were absent (That made me wonder. Deals are made of these sorts of absences…) Councillor Hulse would be late. Councillor Morrison was away on Council business but would be in later.

Chairman: Councillor George Wood was in the Chair in Cllr Hulse’s absence.

Heart of the City: Alex Swney, Greg McKeown and Terry Gould (HOC Chairman) were given 5 minutes, without power point. Mr Gould reminded Cllrs of the 2 pager briefing that had been pr-circulated (nods and shakes of heads) and delivered their forceful, pointed arguments. I report them here as I noted them:

-         “…the Port is in our patch

-         requires in depth consideration

-         your officers have said “you don’t need to see Stage 2 of the research”, and that looking out 30 years is enough – instead of 100

-         there is a discrepancy in the growth projections used by POAL from those in the Price Waterhouse report

-         you have asked for good information in which to base your decision, and you have not had it

-         I ran STEM (Stop the Eastern Motorway). I remind Cllrs that it was POAL that led the pro-highway campaign

-         We won that campaign and the Council fell

-         We insist that that Stage 2 report is received before decision. The Stage 2 report considers all the urban connections and implications like new roads and rail connections. It considers Maori implications.

-         Don’t put any of the POAL expansion plans into the Unitary Plan”

Cllr Casey Question: Isn’t there a conflict of interest issue? Council’s Chief Finance Officer Andrew McKenzie is on the board of NZCID – submitting here for the POAL plans. And there is another director who sits on the board of POAL and EMA – also here submitting for the POAL expansion plans? (Gould agreed.)

Cllr Fletcher Question: Should the Unitary Plan be fast-tracked in relation to its ability to increase employment opportunities? (Swney said did not need to be rushed. There were efficiency activities underway by POAL now that would increase employment without expansion.)

Cllr Filipaina Question: Could you explain what you mean by the Maori issue? (HOC said there were a number of issues in Stage 2 report, including a proper understanding of Maori relationship with Ports, reclaimed land, and the harbour, with implications, which had yet to be worked through.)

Chamber of Commerce - Michael Barnett (and Tony Garnier). Barnett started off with a sustained attack on Heart of the City, which he returned to:

-         “…This is not a conversation…

-         the real heart of Auckland is its Port..

-         the POAL plan is a realistic and practical proposal

-         remember the PWC report which called for “all three ports” – Auckland, Marsden and Tauranga being needed

-         there is no case for the Port to be moved and re-located, it would cost upwards of $4 billion

-         POAL and its customers need certainty, and that is being undermined

-     we are giving Tauranga ratepayers money that should be subsidising our rates…”

No Questions noted.  (Barnett’s thrust was an attack on Heart of the City. Tactic was pure and simple: shoot the messenger. Struck me at the time the debate was being shaped as an either/or: either expand the port or close it down. Unstated middle-ground is maximize its efficiency on presently consented footprint. No further reclamation proposals. And his point about Tauranga ratepayers was very cheap.)

Westhaven Marina Users – Barry Holton. Forthright defence of recreational boat users, but also concerned about knock-on effects to urban Auckland:

-         we have grave concerns about amenity value losses

-         oppose further narrowing of Harbour, and related loss of views

-         it will compromise Auckland’s “City of Sails” brand and image

-         there is a rush hour on the Harbour at key times, a washing machine effect of boats coming and going, that will be increased by narrowing

-         tidal flow rates will increase and new eddies will form

-         distinct lack of stakeholder consultation by POAL which amounts to criminal negligence

Employers and Manufacturers – Kim Campbell.  This seemed like the soft cop to the Chamber’s hard cop:

-         these plans are just a signal, an opportunity

-         this is a business and it needs confidence, and its customers need reassurance that it’s a going concern

-         to talk of moving it is fantasy

-         do we want to grow, or take the shutters down?

No Questions noted. ( This came over as far too glib. And again the repeated message: “Auckland will only grow if Ports of Auckland grows…” No mention of the middle option. The middle line in the sand.)

POAL CEO – Tony Gibson.  This was a detailed and reasonably factual presentation, which was interspersed with a series of attacks on Heart of the City:

-         he began by attacking details in HOC media releases, saying, “these just support Ports of Tauranga”

-         it would cost $4billion to build a new port – and that’s what HOC wants

-         we are discussing reclamation proposals, it has been a good, unrushed process

-         he praised Councillors for their engagement

-         he used the PWC report’s call for flexibility as a justification for more reclamation

-         he pushed back against Council suggestions that reclamation within the basin should be “non-complying” and didn’t want other reclamations to be any more difficult than other reclamations – in consenting terms

-         our public presentation has not attracted the same public criticism as last time

Cllr Casey Question. Angry about employment and industrial relations.

Cllr Wayne Walker Question.  Should we not have stage 2 report before we decide? We’re being caught on the hop here. What about berthing Queen Mary 2 if we shorten Marsden Wharf for example?  (Gibson answer: Marsden is mostly built on rock 2 metres below the surface. Won’t be able to blast this.)  (Gibson answer: The stage 2 issues that councillors are concerned about can be dealt with in a future resource consent application.)

Maori Statutory Board Question: Talked about past issues and history. We have a sticking point, that Maori issues have been relegated to stage 2. We want the Maori issues lifted to a higher level.

Cllr Wood Question.  Sought clarification on the difference between options 1 and 2 and what the officer’s recommendation was. (Appeared to be confusion here.)

Cllr Webster Question.  Also sought clarification on the difference between options 1 and 2. (Confusion deepened.)

Devonport – Takapuna Local Board Chair – Chris Darby. A forthright criticism:

-         “….we were a little seduced by the carrot of Captain Cook Wharf, but not for the price of what POAL is asking

-         this is not the time to be putting extension opportunities into the Unitary Plan

-         there is a risk that any RMA consent application will be called in by the Minister, and the decision will be made in Wellington

-         this would reduce opportunities for public input about road and rail consequences

-         POAL has not done the work needed to dismiss relocation. There’s nothing about this in these documents. There’s no cost benefit assessment.

-         More reclamation is just more sprawl. We like it in Auckland. It’s a habit we must break.

-         We are more of a Harbour Edge City, than a Reclaim the Harbour City

-         We need to take a global view here, and call for the Stage 2 report. Don’t put these expansion plans into the Unitary Plan….”

Cllr Walker Question/Statement.  The tests that are now being applied in the RAM for consents are more about reasonableness than anything else. Whittled down.

Cllr Brewer Question: Challenged Darby on what Local Board’s position was. Debate.

Auckland Council Officer – Harvey Brookes.  (This officer is known for his robust backing of economic growth and port expansion. A cheer-leader for POAL. He has difficulty now in taking a position of credible independence) He began with complex maps with various non-complying areas, grey areas, corners, extensions and complexity. (Muddied the waters.) Things he said:

-         this is not a resource consent hearing

-         if we do nothing (in terms of Unitary Plan) there could be an application for reclamation from POAL – which would be dealt with by what is in the plan now – which is very much more permissive than what is proposed.

-         He acknowledged Maori concerns

-         Auckland will have four bites at this cherry: Auckland Unleashed; Now with this Draft Plan; then when the Unitary Plan is finally notified; and then when a consent application is made – does not need any more

-         The PWC report justifies what is proposed here

Mayor Len Brown. Moved to head off looming stoush. I understand a lot of work had been going on behind the scenes between his Executive Office Staff, key stakeholders, and officers. He moved an alternative set of resolutions. Speaking to them he summarized what their purpose was:

-         these give us more time to consider the issues

-         from the get go – the Port stays

-         Captain Cook and Marsden wharves need to come back into public

-         There is not enough information re transport connections and inland port, but we could notify these plans without that

-         We have until September to decide in principle on POAL position.

-         Will revisit this June/August period

-         We’ve seen the changes today, have luxury of time, utilize that

Deputy Mayor Hulse seconded.

Cllr Casey:  Major concerns about conflicts of interest.

Cllr Wayne Walker:  Worried about very limited number of options on table.

Cllr Hulse:  We do need to draw a line in the sand about this. The Unitary Plan can’t be silent on POAL expansion.

Maori Statutory Board:  Worried about maori investigation being missed out. Moved an amendment. This was incorporated with Mayor Len Brown’s agreement. (This effectively severed from Stage 2 investigation the Maori issues, and gave them high priority in Council eye’s than the urban transport implications of POAL expansion plans.)

Cllr Fletcher:  These recommendations are wishy washy. Port should stay. Recommendations should state that. Mayor Len Brown said, “I’m happy to say that – that Port should remain in its present location.”  This was then incorporated into the resolutions.

Cllr Raffills:  I like what we’re saying. But think it should mention all three ports. This is a strategic matter. Not just about POAL alone.

Cllr Webster:  I support this.

Cllr Wood:  Support, but I’m still unsure about the 179 metre and 135 metre options.

Cllr Filipaina:  Support and like common sense and more time.

Cllr Brewer:  I agree with Cllr Fletcher about location. Am interested in POAL public consultation now. How will it be concluded? Is it well resourced? (People behind me muttered about how independent it was, and how was doing it….)  Harvey Brookes explained that it was being done to “certain standards” which were not explained.  (I have to say that I think the whole thing is being done well below the public radar, despite reasonable coverage by NZ Herald. It is clearly not in POAL’s interest to get the public interested in this at all….)

Cllr Hartley:  It’s good that it’s in the Unitary Plan (it’s not yet).

Cllr Anae:  Asked various questions of Tony Gibson which he replied to about efficiency. Productivity will move from 32 movements an hour to 42 (unsure what this means), will be able to handle 3.1 million containers with what we have now (I think this is what he said), will be a paradigm shift in port technologies, ships are getting beamier, can cope with what we have now….)

And with that a vote was taken. 

Total agreement. A decision to buy some time. 

A decision, I hope, in which the public will be enabled to engage.

Sea level Rise in Auckland?

You may have seen something of the reported findings of the Climate Change part of CSIRO in Australia. (The intro to the report includes: The Australian Government’s Bureau of Meteorology has been observing, reporting and researching Australia’s weather since 1908. CSIRO has been undertaking atmospheric and marine research for more than 60 years. Together our scientists continue to build the body of knowledge that allows people to understand the changes in our climate that we are observing and prepare for any future changes.) The findings were circulated earlier this year. 

Made me wonder what was happening – or being recorded in New Zealand.

For example, the summary says this:

State of the Climate 2012 provides an updated summary of long-term climate trends. It notes that the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade having been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s…. 2011 was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Niña event. The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 15 years.

There has been a general trend towards increased spring and summer monsoonal rainfall across Australia’s north during recent decades, and decreased late autumn and winter rainfall across southern Australia. The summary shows that the very strong La Niña event in 2010 followed by another in 2011 brought the highest two-year Australian-average rainfall total on record.

State of the Climate 2012 also highlights the increase in global sea level and notes sea-level rise around Australia since 1993 is greater than, or equal to, the global average. Our observations show that sea-surface temperatures around Australia have increased faster than the global average. The concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new high in 2011. Annual growth in global fossil-fuel CO₂ emissions between 2009 and 2010 was 5.9 per cent, reversing a small decline of 1.2 per cent recorded between 2008 and 2009 during the global financial crisis.

It was the sea level rise information that intrigued me. You can see for yourself here. Further into the summary we read the following Key points:

• Global average mean sea level for 2011 was 210 mm above the level in 1880.
• Global average mean sea level rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the 20th century as a whole.

And then this paragraph, and associated map (below) about rising sea level around Australia

  

Rates of sea-level rise are not uniform around the globe and vary from year to year. Since 1993, the rates of sea-level rise to the north and northwest of Australia have been 7 to 11 mm per year, two to three times the global average, and rates of sea-level rise on the central east and southern coasts of the continent are mostly similar to the global average. These variations are at least in part a result of natural variability of the climate system.

This was the first time I knew that sea level rises vary across the planet. I had assumed sea level rise was uniform. But not so. Here’s how sea level changes vary across the Earth:

 

You can check for yourself with this useful tool (remember to expand out so you can see the whole world, or zoom in on your country of interest, click ‘global’):

You can also see data for 4 measuring stations in New Zealand. 

These give the sea level change in mm/year, with a variability:

Auckland            1.29mm.yr    +/- 0.2mm

Wellington           2.45mm/yr   +/- 0.29mm

Lyttleton              2.36mm/yr    +/- 0.29mm

Bluff                    1.57mm/yr     +/- 0.24mm

What is also interesting is that some areas of sea are dropping in level, while others are rising. On average the sea level is rising mainly because of warming. (For at least the last 100 years, sea level has been rising at an average rate of about 1.8 mm per year. Most of this rise can be attributed to the increase in temperature of the sea and the resulting slight thermal expansion of the upper 500m of sea water. Additional contributions, around 25% of the total expansion, come from water sources on land, such as melting snow and glaciers and extraction of groundwater for irrigation and other agricultural and human needs.)

So why does it vary? Why some increases and some decreases? I have summarised my research here:

To understand sea-level change at a particular coast, we must know the sum of global, regional and local trends related to changing ocean and land levels.

Local sea level change can deviate from the global mean sea level change for a number of reasons:

- Ocean water moves around driven by winds and other factors, so that even if global water volume does not change (constant global-average sea level) there will be regional sea level changes. This can happen due to both natural oscillations in the climate system (such as El Niño / Southern Oscillation) and forced anthropogenic changes.
- The gravitational pull of land ice is reduced as the ice melts, which has a surprisingly large effect on the sea surface. For example, as ice on Greenland melts this will cause a global sea level rise, but a regional drop in sea level in a circular area around Greenland (you can see that in the map above).
- There are vertical land movements that make the sea level change locally relative to the land - which is relevant for the impacts of sea level rise. This can have both natural reasons (i.e. plate tectonic or earth’s crust processes as well as the still ongoing response to the massive ice loss at the end of the last ice age, called glacial isostatic adjustment), and anthropogenic reasons (like groundwater or oil extraction causing the coast to subside).
Changes in ocean circulation are difficult to predict. Modelling ice melt is a challenge in the context of global sea level. To compute the gravity effects, one also needs to know where the ice melts, not just the overall total. And while long-term local land motions can be assumed to occur at a constant rate and thus extrapolated from past measurements, such measurements are not available everywhere, and local land movement can change due to recent effects (like local melting of glaciers, or changes in groundwater pumping, or sudden earthquakes).

Overall, sea level changes can locally differ by some tens of centimeters (or even more in some special cases) from the global mean sea level change. This makes some locations, like low-lying delta cities on subsiding ground, particularly vulnerable.

So there you have it. Some facts and food for thought.

And it looks like we need to pay attention to what's happening in Auckland, because it might not behave in a nice straight line. Unexpected or unpredictable events elsewhere can significantly affect our local situation.

Unitary Plan Overlays for Everybody

The Auckland Unitary Plan is out now for a period of non-statutory consultation. There has been a lot of media attention – particularly on the matter of density and permitted building height. The plan is generating a lot of interest – both negative and positive – which is to be expected.

At yesterday’s Auckland Plan Committee meeting – alongside the big matter of POAL’s Expansion plans – the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board presented its Area Plan for incorporation into the Unitary Plan.

Now this might not sound a big deal in the big wide world of Auckland planning. But believe me – it is significant. For a variety of reasons….

One of the big drivers for a Unitary Plan were arguments from developers, the development community, and those complaining about “red tape” – and wanting harmonization, simplification, the same zonings and planning controls across Auckland. Many have argued against this – that the fine grain of urban form, and the achievement of diversity of housing types and communities, and of difference, as is commonly seen in cities around the world – will be undermined if regulatory tools become the same across Auckland. One size fits all.

However. Having a single Auckland Council, with a single Auckland Plan, and a single Unitary Plan in terms of the Resource Management Act, is what we’ve got, and the ducks are all lining up for simplification in land use planning. For example there are just four residential zones in the Unitary Plan (five if you include rural and coastal):

• Single House
• Mixed Housing
• Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings
• Large Lot
• Rural and Coastal Settlement.

“…Collectively, these zones provide for a mix of housing types, ranging from a single detached house on a suburban section to an apartment near a metropolitan centre to a bach in a coastal settlement. This range of housing types will provide for greater housing choice and improve housing affordability that is necessary to meet the needs of Auckland's diverse population.

The Single House, Mixed Housing and the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zones are applied in existing and future urban areas and provide for a variety of densities. The highest density of development is expected to occur in close proximity to public transport stops and routes and within and around centres. Providing for growth in this manner and in these locations is not only an efficient use of land but will also increase access to public transport and strengthen the role of centres….”

Back to Hibiscus and Bays. The Auckland Plan proposed that up to 8 storey buildings could be built in the coastal communities of Browns Bay and Orewa. The Draft Unitary Plan proposes up to 6 storeys (which officers advise in their report to Auckland Council) “….will discourage development in an already difficult environment…”.

The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board have been listening to concerns from local people and have gone to enormous lengths to prepare their own Area Plan, and have undertaken extensive community consultation. (Staff and Working Group members have had more than 1,000 face to face conversations with locals.)

The results of the consultation that are set out in the Area Plan and which have been communicated to Auckland Council include:

That the town centres of Orewa and Browns Bay core have height limits of 4 storeys

Officers are resisting these changes stating: “…the 4 storey height limit proposed in the draft Area Plan was not commercially viable for selected lots within the three town centres analysed and even the 6 storey option was marginal…” (It is unclear what the selection criteria were for the ‘selected’ lots.)

Attending the Unitary Plan meeting yesterday was Kurt Marquat, from Browns Bay. He owns investment properties there, and has been interested in local planning, and vocal about it, for decades. He told the Council Committee:

 -     I’ve seen zonings for the area come and go. Some less successful than others. The proposed zonings for the area, pre North Shore City Council did not work particularly well.

-         When NSCC was formed, it decided there would be town centres at Highbury, Takapuna and Browns Bay. And it decided that 15 metres was right for Browns Bay. Nothing happened for a long time.

-         Then Anzani sought consent for the first 15 metre building on the waterfront. The public now understood what could happen and resisted it – even though the zoning permitted it.

-         Finally the Environment Court ruled an appropriate limit was 12.5 metres

-         You are now suggesting 24.5 metres – this will lead to serious over-shadowing – and a major shading problem because most streets run East-West

-         He listed a number fo cities he’d lived in (Waterloo in Belgium, Copenhagen) and asserted that the heights proposed would not make the town “more liveable”.

This was a very interesting and insightful submission I thought, because Mr Marquat linked streetscape with building height. We speak of the 4 – 6 storey buildings that Haussmann forced on Paris. And which we all think look fantastic today. But look at the Boulevards they face – the street width can support building heights like that. Look at liveable cities in the US – like Washington and Boston – again, the ratio between street width and building height is respected. The urban landscape is of what is termed “human scale”. Streets can be narrower – but they need correspondingly wide pedestrian rights of way.And this matters because we - in Auckland - are unlikely to be changing the width of our streets anytime soon. Though we might change how the road space is actually allocated...

The most successful narrow streets in medieval towns – with 4 and sometimes 5 storey terrace housing – are for pedestrian only. No cars. The ratio is different – but acceptable because the pedestrian environment is highly attractive and low speed.

Martin Emery of Orewa Ratepayers and Resident Association also addressed the meeting. Reading between the lines, and having heard about this Hibiscus and Bays Area Plan for a long period of time and on several occasions at Auckland Council, I would suggest there is a very considerable amount of local commitment to it.

They don’t want what is in the Draft Unitary Plan.

The last thing they asked Auckland Council for, was to make their Area Plan a specific “Overlay” in the Unitary Plan. Good call. But imagine that. What will the development community make of it? How would it be “read” by the Environment Court alongside the provisions of the Unitary Plan?

Are we talking 6 storeys?

Or are we talking 4 storey’s?

Place Making on Queens Wharf

This is the sort of place Queens Wharf was a while ago. A continuation of Queens Street. A place to trade, do business, walk and talk...

When the Rugby World Cup came to Auckland, this was the sort of place Queens Wharf became for a month or so. Pedestrian heaven. A place to meet people. It was a taste of things to come. But what sort of a place is it becoming?

This posting looks at how transport decisions are shaping the place that is Queens Wharf. Some changes are for the good, but others threaten the potential for Queens Wharf to become a great place to go.

Using this aerial picture from Google of downtown Auckland (which is recent I know), I will concentrate on the street network that serves and surrounds Queens Wharf, and investigate the recent history of change...

(Dates are approximate. And forgive some latitude with detail.)

In 1990, downtown Auckland accorded priority in its transport planning to general traffic. This is what the red lines illustrate.

Boy racers made Queens Street hell on a Friday night, heavy traffic ran through the streets getting from A to B.

Ports of Auckland owned and operated Queens Wharf, and any related traffic movements were as shown, on the other side of the red fence.

There were some bus routes into the heart of the CBD, but it was before the Northern Busway, and it was when buses had their station at the old Britomart - which is to the right of this map.

Queens Street had good footpaths, for pedestrians, but Queens Street was not a pleasant walking environment because of the priority given the general traffic.

A lot changed around 2002.

Rail came into the CBD at Britomart.

General traffic was excluded for Queen Elizabeth Square which became a major bus interchange, with better pedestrian amenity than my map suggests (forgive me).

Buses came and went along Customs Street, and into and out of Queen Elizabeth Square. More bus services were provided along Queens Street.

And the pedestrian environment along the seaside of Quay Street was widened and significantly improved.

In 2010, Ports of Auckland Ltd sold Queens Wharf to Auckland Regional Council and Central Government. POAL stopped using it, and it was opened periodically for public access. The map records the fact that general traffic on Queens Wharf stopped.

This map shows the improved pedestrian environment that had been provided earlier in Queen Elizabeth Square.

It also records the dramatic improvement in pedestrian amenity along Queens Street. The narrowing red line along Queens Street reflects the fact that the changed priorities in favour of buses and pedestrians led to a significant drop in general traffic using Queens Street.

The green line at the bottom of the map records the development of the very popular "shared space" roading in that narrow street area of the CBD.

Then in 2011 Auckland hosted the Rugby World Cup. You will recall that Queens Wharf was opened up for pedestrian access in a big way. Much in the way of pedestrian amenity was provided (seating, toilets, big screen TVs, eateries, shelter), and it was very popular. Lots to do. People-watching.

Also, and we must not forget this, a large section of Quay Street was completely pedestrianised for long periods.

No general traffic, or buses were allowed in Quay Street. This was a significant moment, and one which was hugely appreciated and enjoyed by visitors to Auckland's downtown waterfront.

And what's happened since?

This map records the main changes.

It began slowly at first.

General traffic and some buses were allowed onto Queens Wharf using the red fence gate nearest the ferry terminal. At the time I recorded the danger this posed to pedestrians and ferry users in this posting.

Another change was that part of the wharf (by Shed 10) has been permanently fenced off, and is used by traffic serving visiting cruise ships.

These changes have slowly and gradually been bedded in this year. But there is still time for sanity and longer term planning to prevail - especially if the goal is place making on Queens Wharf.

The most damaging change has been the establishment of a traffic light controlled intersection directly off Queens Wharf, onto Quay Street, right next to the ferry terminal, directly across from Queen Elizabeth Square, and slap bang in the middle of an area of very high pedestrian movement.

The street end of Queens Wharf is being turned into a road for general traffic, taxis and buses. This road is adjacent to the Ferry terminal, and severs it from the informal public areas and activities that are being trialled on Queens Wharf.

Ironically, changes to passenger handling inside the ferry terminal now mean that the wall of the terminal that faces the wharf could be opened up and activated. (You can see better what I mean with this. Look at this posting in which I use a simple model to roughly illustrate the ferry terminal building edge which can now be activated without affecting ferry services.

This is what happens on Quay Street every couple of minutes. It's full of pedestrians crossing from Queen Elizabeth Square to the Ferry Terminals and the promenade side of Quay Street. And back again. This photo doesn't do justice to the massive articulated trucks that pound this road.

This is the road that is damaging Queens Wharf as a people place, as a place for pedestrian activity and fun.

It has grown like topsy. It needs to be nipped in the bud. Because there are better ways of managing Queens Wharf's general traffic and bus transport needs.

If Auckland's goal is to be the most liveable city, then it needs to increase (not decrease) pedestrian priorities in the transport planning for Queens Wharf and its surrounding street network including Quay Street.

I accept that there will be a need for traffic movements on Queens Wharf. But these could easily follow the route taken by Ports of Auckland, and entry and exit can be via the POAL's entry further East along Quay Street. As shown here.

Quay Street needs to be developed as Auckland's CBD waterfront promenade. If necessary buses and taxis can pick up and drop off at the ferry terminal on Quay Street.

Queens Street needs to be further pedestrianised.

And Customs Street is the ideal route for a high frequency and high quality tram service connecting the central city with Wynyard Quarter, and servicing Queens Street itself.

This needs Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Waterfront Auckland to work together and deliver good place-making and transport planning on and around Queens Wharf.

Mangawhai: Fixing Faults or Validating Mistakes?

As the Mangawhai rate strike against Kaipara District Council’s mismanaged sewage scheme approaches its first anniversary, and the argument moves through the High Court and into Parliament for resolution, the fundamental role of the banks begins to loom large, requiring intervention.

The Mangawhai Ratepayer and Residents Association has been working hard toward a High Court judgment that Council acted unlawfully – particularly when taking on substantial bank loans. Last week the Association wrote to the Minister of Local Government seeking a meeting before filing its Statement of Claim for judicial review proceedings.

Meanwhile the Kaipara District Council (KDC) government appointed commissioners have been working behind the scenes on an approach known as validating legislation, and this was made public last week. As part of that announcement Kaipara District Council finally acknowledged that a number of “irregularities” occurred in the setting and assessing of rates in each of the financial years 2006 to 2012. It also conceded that it failed to meet Local Government Act (LGA) consultation requirements for its most recent long-term plan 2012-2022.

These admissions (more than fifty are listed) are good news to ratepayers because their doubts about the Council have been confirmed. Council’s admissions of irregularities, failures and breaches of the law have rendered aspects of ratepayers’ planned legal action unneccessary.

But the next question is what to do about these admissions. For example it means that the Council is, by its own admission, now operating outside the law because it has no valid Long Term Plan.

To deal with this gap, KDC’s commissioners have released draft “validating” legislation which is intended to restrospectively fix all irregularities and failures. This Local Bill is to be introduced into Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Commissioners will be hoping for a quick passage, but residents are increasingly concerned that it will just lock in their problems and concerns, rather than solving them.

By way of illustration, one of the clauses of the bill deals with Council’s failure to consult and states: “Despite the failure of the Council to comply with sections 83(1) and 93(3) of the Local Government Act 2002, the Council's long-term plan 2012-2022 is valid and declared to have been lawfully adopted by the Council.”

This is draconian stuff. It sets a dangerous precedent, not just in Local Government but for the future of democracy.  It suggests that when a council oversteps the mark and ignores the community and breaks the law, then government will step in and validate that behaviour.

A further problem with the broad validating approach is that it ignores individual ratepayer differences and the different impacts the “irregularities” and “failures” have had. A one size fits all Bill risks angering and upseting members of the community. They will be forced to make submissions to the Select Committee who probably won’t be able to take a blind bit of notice.

A cynic might suggest that’s all part of the Government’s bigger plan to amalgamate councils up and down the country. More than one MP has called for the Far North District Council, Kaipara, Whangarei, and Northland Regional Council to be merged. Sowing anti-council dissent among Kaipara ratepayers might assist that objective. 

That would be a negative outcome. These areas need effective local government, not the massive costs and distant administration of another super council.

Local Government exists for one reason. It is there to administer, provide and fund the different needs of different locals in a local environment.

The uniform validating legislation being pushed through now by commissioners is a whitewash which might fix the council, but won’t address local issues.

But probably the most profound issue all this raises is the role of the banks and the size and impact of the bank debt.

The preamble to the validating legislation bill states: “the Council borrowed $57,978,000.00 to fund the capital costs of the Mangawhai EcoCare Sewerage Scheme, and it is acknowledged that section 117 of the LGA applies to those borrowings such that they are protected transactions and remain valid and enforceable.”

Mangawhai ratepayers believe that most, if not all, of these KDC borrowings were not lawful. The rate strike has been strongly supported because of resistance to paying interest on loans ratepayers had little or no say over.

Kaipara District Council borrowed money from Amro Bank to begin with. Later, Amro Bank sold those loans to the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which, during the global financial crisis, almost went bust and needed to be bailed out by the UK Government. Prior to the bailout and to increase its liquidity the RBS embarked on a fire sale of various assets and loans – including the Kaipara District Council loans.

These were purchased by ANZ and BNZ. You can be sure they would not have been purchased at face value. I am advised the purchase price for those loans would be less than 50 cents in the dollar. Yet both banks are presumably charging Kaipara District Council – and ratepayers – the interest rate agreed with Amro.

Given the disagreement over the loans and the traded nature of the borrowings, what might be a fair rate of interest from now on? How does it all work? 

Events when Councillors were sacked and Commissioners appointed illustrate the nature of the relationship between the banks and KDC. To prepare the ground for the change in governance reassurance was sought from the banks that they would not foreclose on the loans (retirement of a Council is a breach of the covenant between bank and council).

The banks, for their part, needed to be re-assured that the Council would be a “going concern”. This reassurance indicated that it would be able to fund the interest on the loans from rates revenue. It is deeply ironic that this reassurance was given September last year, in the light of commissioners’ admissions now that Council has been operating outside the law with no valid long term plan. This means that since September it has had no power to operate as a local authority in New Zealand, or collect rates, or to claim it was a going concern.

Tellingly, at a public meeting on 11 February, Commissioner Chair Mr Robertson stated that KDC only pay 10% of their interest charges using money raised from rates.  The rest they pay by capitalising the interest and borrowing more.  The rates burden that will fall on the district if they move, as they say they will, to pay-as-you-go, will be likely to double local residential rates to around $5,000/household. 

Tread carefully. Don’t rush into validation of  bad decisions. Building trust between ratepayers and Council will require careful local solutions, negotiated over time.

Know Your Validating Legislation

Kaipara District Council has been sacked. Commissioners appointed to fix the mess. And their latest initiative - validating legislation is in the public domain. This is a Local Bill. No public discussion or consultation occurred.

Now that the Commissioner's famous Bill to fix everything is public, it is time it was examined. The explanation in the bill says this: 

The Kaipara District Council acknowledges that a number of irregularities occurred in the setting and assessing of rates in the financial years relating to 2006/2007 to 2011/2012 (inclusive). This has raised questions about the validity of those rates.... Some of the rates in question relate to the capital and operational funding of the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme....The Council considers that it is desirable to address the rating irregularities and legislation is the only means by which the rates can be validated and any penalties payable on any outstanding rates can be validated.

You can read the Bill for yourself. It can be downloaded here. In fact it is an incredibly interesting read because it carefully lists many of the mistakes the council made over the last 6 or 7 years. If you want to make a submission then it helps to read it. The timeline for submissions isn't known yet. 

But to give you a flavour, Section 15 of the Bill, which will become law if passed by parliament, says this: 

15 Validation of rates assessments Despite the failure of the Council to set out some of the information required by section 45(1) of the Rating Act, the Council's rates assessments for the 2006/2007, the 2007/2008, the 2008/2009, the 2009/2010, the 2010/2011, the 2011/12, and the 2012/2013 financial years are valid and declared to be and to always have been lawful.

This is tough to take. It's like saying, these rates assessments were lies, but we'll make them true with this law. 

Commissioner Chairman Robertson has said, that this is a one-off situation that has to be addressed and there is no other way. But the government has done absolutely nothing to improve the supervision of councils and its recent changes to Local Government law remove most of the requirements on councils to consider the well-being of their communities when they do things. So all of the councils up and down the country who are ignoring the law as it stands now know they can carry on ignoring the law, because if Kaipara can get away with it on this scale, so will everyone else. This Bill sets a terrible precedent, not just in Local Government, but for the future of democracy.